HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-0012.Heslinga et al.90-09-25Eh4P‘o”Es DE LA CO”RONNE DE “ONTARIO
CQMMISSION DE
REGLEMENT
DES GRIEFS
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Wader
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before .
TRE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
POR TEE '
GRIEVOR
FOR TEE
EMPLOYER
REARING
OPSED (Heslinga et al)
Grievor
- aad -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Correctional Services)
- and :
Employer
B. Kirkwood Vice-Chairperson
F. Taylor Member
D. Clark Member
N. Coleman
Counsel
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Barristers & Solicitors
J. Benedict
Manager
Staff Relations and Compensation
Ministry of Correctional Services
October 16, 23, 1989
March 26, 1990
DECISION
In 1984, the grievor, Mr. Reijnen was a Maintenance
Foreman and the grievor, Mr. Heslinga was an Agricultural
Operations Officer. Mr. Reijnen and Mr. Heslinga launched
their.grievances in September~ 1984, claiming that they were
improperly classified.
Mr. Reijnen retired in September, 1987 and his
position was filled by Mr. Heslinga. In September, 1988, Mr.
Heslinga then grieved his classification as a Maintenance
Foreman.
The grievor, Mr. Burkhart replaced Mr. Heslinga as
the Agricultural Operations Officer and grieved the
classification of his position on September 30, 1988. Mr.
Heslinga retired in May 1989 and Mr. Burkhardt filled his
position as a Maintenance Foreman and retains the position to
date.
The grievers who held the position of Agricultural
Operations Officer are seeking reclassification of their
There are three grievors and four grievances before
USI each of which disputes the grievor's job classification
for the period during which the grievor held the position of
Property(or Grounds) and Maintenance Foreman (Maintenance
Foreman standard) referred to in this decision as a _
"Maintenance Foreman," or as Agricultural Operations Officer,
(Agricultural Worker 3 standard), referred to in this
decision as an "Agricultural Operations Officer", at the
Guelph Correctional Centre, referred to in this decision as
the G.C.C.
-.‘. -‘:
Page2
,:c ,i
Page3
position to an Industrial Officer 2, and the grievors who
held the position of Maintenance Foremen are seeking
reclassification of their position to an Industrial Officer
3.
The duties and responsibilities of the positions
did not change in the period covering these grievances.
The G.C.C. has approximately 500 acres of property,
including 150 acres of landscaping, 50 acres of vegetable
gardens and two greenhouses. The maintenance of the
landscaping, the vegetable gardens and the greenhouses are
the responsibility of the Maintenance Foreman, the
Agricultural Operations Officer and the Greenhouse Officer.
The Union's counsel submitted that the Agricultural
Operations Officer's prime responsibility is to operate the
vegetable garden relying on inmate labour, under the control
of crew bosses or gang bosses who are either Correctional
Officers or Industrial Officers. These duties and
responsibilities were the same or were substantially similar
to those of the Greenhouse Officer who had been reclassified
to the higher position of Industrial Officer 2 by the
Grievance Settlement Board in QESEV (raKnsMPT and W
Servxe.sL
G.S.B. #0004/85, 22/85 etc. (G. Brent) (Townsend). He
submitted that the Agricultural Operations Officers ought to
be treated in a similar manner and ought to be reclassified
to the position of an Industrial Officer 2.
The Union's counsel submitted that the duties and
responsibilities described. in the Position Specification of
the Maintenance Foreman are generally accurate; however,
those duties and responsibilities do not fit the Maintenance
Foreman class standard. He submitted that the duties and
responsibilities of the Maintenance Foreman are agricultural
) :\:
Page4
in nature and not maintenance in nature, which is the main
focus of the class standard of the Maintenance Foreman.
The Union's counsel submitted that although the
work of the Maintenance Foreman is largely agricultural, the
duties and responsibilities of the Maintenance Foreman do not
correspond to any classification in the Agricultural Worker
Series. The Ministry's representative agreed with the
Union's counsel that the Maintenance Foreman should not be
considered as an Agricultural Worker ,4.
The Union's counsel submitted.that the Industrial
Officer 3 classification is the "best fit" for the
Maintenance Foreman position, as it would be consistent with
the Townsend (supra) decision that an Industrial Officer 2 be
supervised by the next highest category, the Industrial
Officer 3. Furthermore, that class' standard takes into
account the responsibilities that the Maintenance Foreman has
for landscaping and his supervisory responsibility over the
Greenhouse Officer and the Agricultural Operations Officer
who perform agricultural work in an industrial setting.
The Ministry's represen~tative submitted that on the
basis of aEsEy IPzu&z) and me Crown rn IQ&t of Ont& * ‘
G.S.E. #107/83 (P.M.Draper) and
trv of witv and Sorti
Servings G.S.B. #10/75 (D.M. Beatty) decisions, the Board
must take the classification system as it exists and the onus
is on the Union to show that the employer has changed or
misapplied the classification system. The Ministry's
representative argued on the basis of the OPSEU
and Hewn in mt of OntarlO of Rev- , I '.
G.S.B. #393/81 (R.L.Verity) decision that the onus is also on
the Union to prove that the grievors have the core duties of
the higher classification, and not that there is merely an
overlap in some of the duties or responsibilities.
Page5
The Ministry's representative submitted that the
Agricultural Officer's position was properly classified and
that the core duties are properly described in the job
standard. He submitted' that the job standards of the
Agricultural Worker 3 standard and the Maintenance Foreman,
which were created twenty-five. years ago, were intended to
encompass non-industrial agricultural work, while the
Industrial Officer series applies only to industrial work.
The Ministry's representative submitted that the
Board erred in its reclassification of the Greenhouse Officer
position to an Industrial Officer 2, and submitted that' a
similar error should not occur in this arbitration.
The Ministry's representative submitted that~ the.
position of Maintenance Foreman is properly classified. He
submitted that the Maintenance Foreman works on the grounds
of the G.C.C. which is to be considered as part of the
"provincial government buildings" as referred to in the
standard.,~ His job is' atypical, but is contemplated by the
description which indicates that this ,classification covers a.
"wide range of skilled maintenance tasks..."He is .responsible
for the Greenhouse Officer. and the Agricultural Officer,
which he submitted fell within the categories of skilled
trades and journeymen, as referred to as subordinates to the
Maintenance Foreman.
It was the Ministry's position that the Union was
attempting to improve the grievers' income by seeking
reclassification of their positions as the Union failed to
increase the.the grievors' Custodial Responsibility Allowance
at the bargaining table.
The Ministry's representative submitted that the
grievors are peace officers and some inmate contact must be
Page6
expected, given the environment. The grievors are compensated
for their custodial duties by a Custodial Responsibility
Allowance, which is not a classification matter, but is a
compensation matter subject to collective bargaining. He
submitted that the grievors are properly classified and the
Union should not be allowed to do through the arbitration
proceedings that which they failed.to do in negotiations.
The onus is upon the Union to prove that the
grievors are improperly classified. The Union must show that
the core duties which the grievors perform fit more closely
into another classification or that there are other employees
who perform substantially the same work as the grievers,. but
who are classified in a higher position. The basis of these
principles are clearly stated in in &aJs and Cain
of Communitv. Servw G.S.B. #30/79 (P.
Draper) at page 11:
It'may be assumed that among the objectives of the
employer's classification. system are
the
achievement of uniformity in policy and consistence
in practice throughout the public service, and
equitable treatment of individual employees. It
follows that it is an abuse of the system and
unfair to employees where the positions of
employees who are performing substantially sim.ilar
work are placed in different classifications. By
intervening where that condition is found to exist
the Board, rather than frustrating the intent or
undermine the operation of the classification
system, is preserving the legitimacy and the
credibility of that system.
The- Board continues at page 12 to review the
applicable tests:
It is well established that, in position
classification cases, the Board must direct its
inquiry to the question, first, whether or not the
work actually performed by the the employee is that
set out in the appropriate class standard and,
second, whether or not he is performing work
substantially similar to that performed by an
,~ ‘$i
Page7
employee whose position has been placed in another
classification. In the first instance the
employee's work is measured against the class
standards and in the second it is measured against
that of an employee in a position that has been
differently classified. The purpose is to
establish that the employer is conforming to its
classification standards or that the employer has
in effect, modified those standards.
We must first examine the duties which were
performed by the grievors when they held their respective
positions and compare them to the class standards.
The evidence showed that the Maintenance Foreman,
the Agricultural Operations Officer and the Greenhouse
Officer form a unit. The unit is managed by the Maintenance
Foreman who is responsible for all aspects of the greenhouse
and vegetable garden operation, and he has direct
responsibility for the landscaping work, at the G;C.C;. As
stated earlier, the Agricultural Operations Officer is
responsible for the vegetable garden and the Greenhouse
Officer oversees the greenhouse operations.
The evidence of the grievors confirmed that the Job
Specification of the Agricultural Operations Officer is an
accurate description of the job with the exception that the
Agricultural Operations Officer has not had maintenance staff
assigned to him and nor did he manage or direct maintenance
staff in any way.
Therefore, the job of the Agricultural Operations
Officer is best described in setting out the relevant
portions of the Position Specification as follows:
2. Purpose of position ( why does this position exist?)
Page8
To perform a variety of agricultural duties
required for the cultivation of crops, garden
vegetables, etc. at the Guelph Correctional Centre.
To supervise a regional storage operation for the
storing and distributing of produce grown at the
Guelph Correctional Centre and other local
institutions. To supervise inmates and assigned
correctional/maintenance staff.
3. Duties and related tasks (what is the employee required
to do, how, and why? Indicate percentage of time 'spent on such duty.
1.60% Performs a vuietv of -al da
- scheduling the preparation of land,
determining types of crops with supervisor,
supervising planting, cultivation,
fertilizing, spraying and harvesting; * - determining work priorities and scheduling
work ,assignments of
correctional/maintenance staff and inmates;
- regularly reviewing conditions of crops and
taking corrective action in problem areas;
- preparing requisitions for supplies, seeds,
equipment, fertilizer, etc. and submitting
to supervisor;
- performing minor maintenance on equipment;
- reviewing work of assigned staff and'
inmates, advising them, of procedures and
techniques, ensuring proper safety
precautions are taken;
- liaising with greenhouse officer re future
requirements, transplanting, etc.;
- operating tractors, cultivators, sprayers,
etc. and instructing inmate helpers in the
use of same:
- maintaining production and supply records re agricultural .operation for review by
supervisor;
- assisting supervisor in the preparation of
annual budgets.
r..Le stocine_and dlstrlbutlon of oroduce Correctional centre and
- liaising with Guelph Correctional Centre
storekeeper, supervisor and designated
i’
I
Page9
officials of other local institutions
regarding the storage and distribution of
produce a Guelph Correctional Centre root
cellar operation;
- maintaining records regarding storage,
distribution and condition of produce;
- supervising the careful loading and
unloading of produces;
- ensuring that produce is regularly and
carefully rotated and checked for damage,
rot etc.; - snow ploughing and sanding of roads around
property;
- other duties as assigned and as required.
Note: Incumbent is responsible in both
functions for the supervision, assessment,
training, safety and disciplining of
assigned inmates for majority of .working
time. Salary note Kl (CRA) applicable.
The next consideration is whether the Union has
been able to prove that the the standard of the Agricultural
Worker 3, does not. properly describe the Agricultural
Operations Officer's job. The Agricultural Worker 3 standard
states:
'~CLASS DEFINITION;
This class covers positions of employees who
are held fully responsible for the complete
operation of an assigned section of agricultural
work at a provincial government building or
industrial farm. They may supervise up to three
subordinate agricultural workers.
At an experimental station or farm, employees
at this level are group leaders of two or more agricultural subordinates. This work is performed
under the general direction of a professional,
administrative or agricultural supervisor.
In some positions, these employees plan and
direct the landscaping and gardening operation at a
provincial government building. They select
varieties of trees, shrubs, flowers and vegetables.
They requisition quantities of seeds, fertilizer, chemicals and implements. They train, supervise
and discipline and assigned subordinates. In most
Page 10
of the positions in this work area, they direct the
operation of a greenhouse and hot and cold frames,
supervising temperature, humidity and ventilation controls and providing flowers for institutional. use.
In other positions, these employees supervise a unit of agricultural work at an institutional
farm s~uch as the landscaping and/or gardening
operation or the management of poultry and/or
livestock. In most positions, as supervising
gardeners, they direct the operation of a greenhouse and hot and cold frames to provide
floral and/or vegetable requirements for the,
institution.
As supervisors in charge of livestock or
poultry, at an institutional farm, they plan and
schedule the.feedinq, cleaning and tending of their
herds and flocks. In these positions, they conduct
the breeding programme, cull poor producers, select
brood stock and direct the slaughtering of poultry
and farm animals. They diagnose ailments,
administer medications or refer problems to a
veterinarian. In some positions, they also direct
t,he separating, bottling, storage and distribution
of milk. In all these positions, they plan and
estimate production requirements and requisition
supplies subject to the approval of ~their
supervisor. They schedule activities of their
subordinates and direct them in the care and
.'maintenpnce of the assigned area.
At an experimental station or farm, these employees provide group leader direction to two or
more agricultural subordinates~. They organise and
direct the activities of these employees in the
cultivation of. crops and care of livestock for
experiment.al purposes. They provide technical
advice and check the completeness and accuracy of
the work. They caution' their staff but
disciplinary problems are normally referred to
their supervisor.
QUALIFICATIONS;
w: - Refer to Preamble.
The Agricultural Operations Officer does have full
responsibility for the "complete operation of ,an assigned
. .
Page11
section of agricultural work at a provincial government
building or institutional farm." as set out in the first
paragraph of the job standard. The G.C.C.'cannot be
considered a "provincial government buildinq*'as suggested by
the Ministry's repr,esentative, as it includes more than one
building and has extensive acreage as its grounds. However,
the G.C.C.falls within the category of a medium sized
institutional farm as defined.in the preamble to the series
as it is a farm which has between 100 to 200 acres under
cultivation or landscaping and it is used to provide food for
the inmates in the institution.
As the qrievors are not Agricultural Operations
Officers at an experimental station or farm, .nor a provincial
building as they are defined by the preamble, the paragraph
that .applies to the qrievors' positions as Agricultural
Workers 3 is the fourth paragraph of the standard as follows:
In other positions, these employees supervise
a unit of agricultural work at an institutional
farm such as the landscaping and/or gardening
operation or the management of poultry and/or
livestock. In most positions, as supervising
gardeners, they direct the operation of a
greenhouse and hot and cold frames to provide floral and/or vegetable requirements for the
institution.
The qrievors are responsible for the agricultural
work at the G.C.C.. They do not do all the work themselves,
but supervise Industrial or Correctional Officers who in turn
direct the inmates in the labour, and the Agricultural
Operations Officers sometimes supervise inmates directly in
the work.
The first paragraph of the class standard states
that the Agricultural Worker 3 "may supervise up to three
subordinate agricultural workers". -Neither the Industrial
Officers nor the Correctional Officers fall within this
. .
Page 12
category and the inmates are also specifically excluded in
the preamble to the Agricultural Worker series, as
subordinates.
As in the Townsend (supra) decision, which we must
consider as there has been no appeal of the decision, this
Board finds that "supervision" requires the direction of
subordinates, which by the definition in the preamble to the
series specifically excludes the persons who the Agricultural
Operations Officer directs. AS supervision of the
agricultural work is a core function of the Agricultural
worker 3 standard, we therefore.find that the Agricultural
Operations Officers position does not fit the Agricultural
Worker 3 job standard in the Agricultural Worker series.
Therefore, we must consider whether the Greenhouse
Officer performs a job similar to the Agricultural. Operations
Officer as submitted by the Union.
We accept Mr Townsend's evidence as an accurate
reflection of his job as a Greenhouse.Officer. In reviewing
his evidence and the evidence of the grievors we find that
there are substantial similarities,in the job functions of a
Greenhouse Officer and an Agricultural Operations Officer.
First, the nature of both their operations are
similar in nature and can be likened to a commercial venture.
The greenhouse operation is comprised of a small
greenhouse and a large greenhouse, and which produces flowers
and vegetable starters for the gardens, and for other
institutions. The vegetable gardens use 25 acres for planting
vegetables, while 25 acres are left fallow, and the remaining
100 acres are landscaped. The purpose of the vegetable
gardens is to produce sufficient produce for this institution
and for other institutions who have placed orders with the
Page 13
Agricultural Officer. The difference between the two
operations is that the greenhouse is an indoor operation, and
the vegetable garden is an outdoor operation.
This type of commercial venture requires planning
produce for sale, planting seeds and producing the flowers or
vegetables for sale on the open market. In the Townsend
(swra) decision, the Board ~found that the greenhouse
operation was similar to a commercial venture.
'The operation of the vegetable gardens has the same
requirements. The evidence of Mr: Heslinqa, who had worked on
both a commercial farm and at the G.C.C., testified that the
operations at the G.C.C. were similar to a commercial
operation. The distinction between a commercial operation
and the operation at the G.C.C. is that the commercial
operation sells to the open market and this operation's
market is limited to this institution and other similar
institutions.
.-Secondly, the Greenhouse Officer and the
Agricultural Operations Officer have similar
responsibilities.
The Greenhouse Officer is in charge of the amount
produced. He discusses what is to be produced with the
Maintenance Foreman. T he Agricultural Operations Officer's
job is similar; however, he discusses the vegetables to be
produced with a,>qreater number of people as he discusses the
crops in discussions with the Maintenance Foreman, the
Kitchen and Maintenance Supervisor and with Karl
Grottenthaler, the Assistant Superintendent in Services and
Industry, who makes the final decision.
Both the Greenhouse Officer and the Agricultural
Operations Officer work twelve months off the year on matters
.
. .
Page 14
related to the plants. The Greenhouse Officer is responsible
for planting the seeds and handling them through to their
distribution as starter plants. Similarly, the Agricultural
Operations Officer is responsible for the planting the seeds
or seedlings, caring for them, harvesting the crops, and
grading, storing and distributing the produce.
The Greenhouse Officer records the seeds purchased,
the sowing dates and the number of flats produced. In the
same way, the Agricultural Operations Officer maintains
records and ledgers on the vegetables produced, maintains a
record of the inventory at alltimes and a record of the
quantity produced and distributed.
Thirdly, the involvement of the Greenhouse Officer
and the Agricultural Operations Officer with the inmates is
the substantially similar.
The .qreenhouses are tended by the Greenhouse
Officer, with the assistance of a gang boss and a gang of
inmates which may vary in number from four to ten people..
The Agricultural Operations Officer is involved with the
outside grounds and has under his command a gang boss who may
be an Industrial Officer or Correctional Officer and at least
one gang of inmates which may number from four to twelve
depending upon the season and the duties required at the
time.
The Greenhouse Officer and the Agricultural
Operations Office; supervise inmates approximately 80% of the
time including instructing them. This is an ongoing task
which requires an extensive amount of time, in both cases, as
the gang of inmates are not the same throughout a season and
will often change day by day.
Page 15
Both officers are required to write accident/injury
reports, and reports on the inmates job habits for parole
reports.
Fourthly, the relationship between the Greenhouse
Officer and the Agricultural Operations Officer with the
Industrial Officers or the Correctional Officers is the same.
Extensive time is both spentby the Greenhouse
Officer and the Agricultural Operations Officer in training
the Industrial or Correctional Officers and the inmates under
their command, as often the Industrial Officers and the
Correctional Officers do not have training in agriculture and
accordingly, have to be trained before they are able to
supervise the inmate gangs.
In addition, there are many jobs which' the
Greenhouse Officer and his gang and the Agricultural Officer
and his gang do together. They frequently work as a unit
under the direction of the Maintenance Foreman. The teams
work as.a unit, planting and harvesting the vegetables,
mowing grass and watering it, and raking leaves. As a unit,
each team performs the same functions.
As the Greenhouse Officer, the Agricultural
Operations Officers, and the Maintenance Foreman work in a
correctional institution, they are all subject to standing
orders of the institution, and work together to insure a
positive attitude on the part of the inmates who ass&t them
and to develop positive work habits in the inmates.
In summary, there are little differences in the
responsibilities and job functions of the Greenhouse Officer.
The difference between the jobs lies in whether the jobs are
focused towards the inside, in the greenhouses, or outside on
the land.
i
Page 16
As stated in QESEY (K. Wallace and L. m and
me Crown in R-t. of Ow(wtrv of T-lf?~
G.S.B.#274/84 (M.R.Gorsky) at p. 3 and 4, quoting Be Atk&$.
and m (1983) G.S.B. #603/91 (Draper):
In its decision over the years, the board has come
to accept that this test is satisfied upon a
showing that the Grievors are performing
substantially similar work to that assigned to a
job in the higher classification. In the Piffard
case, the arbitrators said further at p. 55;"... we
accept the measure of 'substantial similarity' as
whether the work of the grievors 'is the same in
its distinctive and essential elements as that
being performed by employees in the classification
sought.
By applying these principles, we find that grievor-s,. as
Agricultural Operations Officers were performing similar
functions as the Greenhouse Officer who was classified in a
higher position of Industrial Officer 2. Therefore, we find
that the grievors are to be classified as Industrial Officer
2s for the relevant times during which they held the position
of Agricultural Operations Officer.
The Board finds that upon hearing the evidence of
the grievors with respect to the duties and.responsibilities
which they had as Maintenance Foremen, that the Position
Specification describes the position of Property and
Maintenance Foreman, for the most part, accurately.
The Position Specification for a Maintenance
Foreman states as follows:
2. Purpose of position 1 why does this position exist?)
To be responsible for the general maintenance
of the institutional property (500 acres involving
Page 17
landscaping (150 acres), horticulture and institution vegetable garden, Provide group leadership to support staff and supervising assigned inmate helpers.
3. Duties and related tasks (what is the employee .required to do, how, and why? Indicate percentage of time spent on
such duty.
6
I . . 1. 70% S- of the lnstltutlonal
i2n=r+v (500 -a (l5.Q
planning, developing and directing maintenance programs;
selecting trees, plants and shrubs for
nursery production and landscaping;
maintaining park like -setting of property
byensuring the mowing of grass, etc.;
determining the layout of gardens
estimating and approving designs submitted
by the greenhouse officer;
requisitioning materials and equipment e.g.
tractors, ploughs, snow removal equipment,
seeding equipment, fertiliser spreaders,
grass cutting equipment as well as
greenhouse supplies e,g. hand tools,
pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, ensuring good working order of all
equipment;
maintaining waterways, implement shed;
ensuring sufficient manpower to assist the
sanitation officer in collecting and disposing of the institutions industrial
waste and garbage;
keeping records of .projects completed,
materials used, etc.;
managing the production and storage of
vegetables;
liaising with clients~ re leases of
institution's surplus land e.g. private
farmers, Ministry of Agriculture and Food;
2. 120%) Prods arom to DroDertv
f. 3 CO's and inmate
b - assigning and checking work, providing
information to supervisor in order to
appraise work performance;
- providing training and instruction,
counselling when problems arise;
- arranging vacation schedules etc.;
Page 18
- supervising inmate tractor drivers in the
operation of tractors and repair of farm
machinery;
- correctional supervision of assigned inmate
helpers.
3~. 110%) PerformsiDs such
- co-ordinating provision of tractors and
trailers for other maintenance staff such
as carpenters,, plumber, etc. to move equipment within the compound;
- liaising with outside contractors, e.g.
contractor building roads on the property;
- such other duties as necessary and
assigned.
4. The incumbent is responsible for the
correctional supervision of.inmate helpers.
(Salary note K-l - C.R.A. applicable)
There are some duties which the Maintenance Foreman
did not do. He did not liaise with clients :on leases of
institution surplus ,lands nor spend 10% of his time on co-
ordinating .the provision of tractors,
trailers, liaising
without outside contractors for building new roads etc.. He
did not' requisition materials and equipment directly,
although he did requisition materials and equipment through
another 'department. The grievors recognised that as
Maintenance Foremen, they had responsibility for the
waterways, although no actual work had been required in the
maintenance. In addition, the work in nursery production was
only in its incipient phase and had not taken a great deal of
time.
The Position Specification stated that the
Maintenance Foreman provided leadership to three Correctional
Officers. In fact, both Correctional Officers and Industrial
Officers were used, but the Industrial Officers were used
more frequently. We find that the ~Maintenance Foreman
provided leadership and training to up to three people which
included Correctional Officers and Industrial Officers, and
also trained and supervised inmate helpers.
When considering the totality of the duties and
responsibilities of the grievors and having compared them to
the Position Specification, we find that only an
insignificant amount of work which is contemplated in the job
description was not done by the Maintenance Foreman.
The Board must now compare the Maintenance
Foreman's job with the standard of the Maintenance Foreman.
The Maintenance Foreman falls under'the class of
standard of the Maintenance Foreman/Forewoman position which
states:
This class covers positions where the employee
is a skilled tradesman or qualified Maintenance
Mechanic, supervising at least two employees at the
Journeyman. level in the performance of a wide
variety of skilled maintenance tasks in a
Government building, institution, field station or
their establishment, including associated equipment and services or in the field. The employee in
these positions usually reports to the official in
charge of maintenance and is responsible for the
discipline and general conduct of the employees
under his supervision as well as for the adequacy
of their work. They instruct, guide, check and
inspect the work performed by their subordinates;
assist the unskilled or semi-skilled to understand.
the requirements of the tasks assigned and the
methods of obtaining acceptable results. They may,
themselves, perform some of the maintenance work as
required although in some positions, most of the work involves the supervision of a large group of
maintenance staff including skilled tradesmen or
Maintenance Mechanics. They may, in the addition,
supervise patient, resident, tminee or inmate helpers. In a few positions, the work may involve
some design and development work or may consist of
specialised work such as the construction of
publicity displays.
1. Elementary school education with a sound knowledge of hand tools and power equipment.
Page20
2. Acceptable experience in general maintenance
work including painting, carpentry, plumbing,
glazing, welding, etc.
3. Supervisory ability; ability to lay out and
organize work from moderately complicated
blueprints and 'specifications; ability to
perform a variety of maintenance tasks; tact;
good judgement; good physical condition.
The Board does not find that the duties and
responsibilities of the'Maintenance Foreman .fit the class
standard of a Maintenance,Foreman.
Maintenance in its broadest sense suggests that the
existing standards are preserved or are kept in good order.
Ensuring that the landscaping is done and meets an acceptable
standard meets the broadest descriptfon. However, we do not
find that the class .standard, although broad, covers
maintenance in this sense.
The qualifications for the position help define the
job. The qualifications required for t~h'e job, include
painting,.~carpentry, plumbing, glazing, welding etc.. There
was no evidence that any of the grievors nor any of those who
worked under them were qualified OK were selected to do these
functions on the basis of these qualifications. On the other
hand, the agricultural background, which is necessary for the
Maintenance Foreman's job in this setting is not included.
In the event that the Maintenance Foreman was to
need, or to ObSeKVe that these skills were KeqUiKed to fix
equipment or buildings, the role of the Maintenance Foreman
was the same as any other employee at the G.C.C., which is to
advise the appropriate department of any maintenance problem.
The Maintenance Foremen was not responsible for repair. The.
only "maintenance" of equipment that was required was the
daily oiling of the machinery. This task is not sufficient
Page21
. .
to bring the Maintenance Foreman into the standard of the
Maintenance Foreman.
The meaning of the word "maintenance" is narrowed
to apply to work requiring the use of the skilled trades.
The Maintenance Foreman in this standard is to be qualified
as a "skilled tradesman or qualified maintenance mechanic,
supervising at least two employees at the JOUKneyman
level...". We find that maintenance means that trades such
as plumbing, welding etc.are to be used in the course of the
job. As neither the Greenhouse Officer and the Agricultural
Officer used these skills, but relied on their agricultural
knowledge, they are not skilled tradesmen as contemplated by
the Maintenance foreman standard.
The supervision and training of others are all an
adjunct to these types of duties. The Maintenance Foreman
supervises instructs Industrial Officers, Correctional
Officers and inmates, but not in maintenanc,e which is the
foundation upon which the Maintenance Foreman class standard
is based. The Ma'intenance ~Foremen as described in the
standard may do some maintenance work, but most of the work
"involves the supervision of a large group of maintenance
staff including skilled tradesmen' or Maintenance Mechanics."
The Maintenance Foremen never supervised, any maintenance
staff at the G.C.C.
Therefore, as the .grievors did not perform any of
the core functions of the Maintenance Foreman standard, we
find that the grievors were improperly classified as
Maintenance Foreman.
The. Union submitted that the Industrial Officer 3
is the best fit for the Maintenance Foreman position.
The Industrial Officer 3 standard states:
Employees in positions allocated to this class
manage a small to medium or relatively complex
production operations such as the Tailor Shop at
Rideau Industrial Far, the Tailor shop at
Millbrook, or the Upholstery Shop at Guelph, or the
Tailor Shop at Burwash. OR They assist in
management of the larger or more complex production
.operations such as the Brick and Tile Mill at
Mimico, the Machine Shop, or the Tailor Shop at
Guelph.
As managers, they are responsible for
estimating and procurement of materials, for
discussing costs with. superiors and for making
recommendations on new product~s to be processed.
They make recommendations to a superior on staff
personnel matters.
As assistants to managers, they have the
responsibility of quantity an,d quality of
production and for security of inmates. They
personally perform work requiring technical skill,
experience and knowledge comparable to journeyman
standing in a trade.
These employees train groups of inmates in
good work habits and technical skills, control the
quality of production and assign inmates to various
tasks in accordance with their capabilities. They
prepare daily reports on inmates' industry and
conduct. They may take over any position in the
production routine in order to investigate and
corrects complaints or to demonstrate proper work procedures.
The Maintenance Foreman is responsible for the
overall operation of the greenhouse, the gardens and the
landscaping. It is a relatively cdmplex operation in that
each aspect operates independently, as well as working as a
unit when production or operations require more manpower.
The element of production is satisfied by the
production of seedlings on a relatively large scale in the
greenhouse operation and the production of various vegetables
Page23
are required in sufficient quantities to satisfy the needs of.
the G.C.C.. Also involved in the production operation is the
sorting and grading of the produce and and the constant watch
for spoilage.
By considering other settings where Industrial
Officers are found, they assist the Board in determining how
the Ministry has interpreted the meaning of "industrial".
Other Industrial Officer .3 positions are found in the Textile
shop, Jobbing Shop, and Laundry, In the Textile Shop they
are involved in the production of shirts, pants, and security
garments for the institutions and in .Laundry, they make
pillows. The nature of the operations -do 'not connote
manufacturing, but require the production of numerous
articles. Therefore, we find that the Ministry has
interpreted the Industrial Officer series standard in a broad
way so as not to be limited to manufacturing.
These working environments have similar features.
Each has an Industrial Officer who supervises other
Industrial Officers and direct the performance of labour by
the use of relatively large numbers of inmates. Each unit
has the Ministry as its customer.
The farm at the G.C.C. is similar. It uses teams of
inmates, usually under the direction of Industrial Officers,
although sometimes Correctional Officers are used, to produce
a number of articles, which fin this case are plants or
vegetables.
Therefore, we find that the farming and landscaping
operations at the G.C.C. is in an industrial setting, as
interpreted by the Ministry in its application of industrial
to other settings.
1
Page24 '
When comparing the other paragraphs of the standard
to the Position Specification of the Maintenance Foreman and
after hearing the evidence of the grievors, we find that all
the functions of the Maintenance Foreman position are found
in the Industrial Officer 3 standard, with the exception that
reports on the inmates are not made.daily, but are made from
time to time, as required.
The class standards are drafted broadly so as to
cover many positions in varying environments. We do not find
that the lack of necessity of making reports on a daily basis
sufficient to find that the Maintenance Eoreman does not meet
this standard.
We agree with the Ministry that the matter of the
Custodial Responsibility Allowance is not a classification
matter. It presupposes that the employees are. properly
classified and then compensates the employee if the
qualifications set out in Appendix 8 are met.
However, in this case we find that the qrievors
were improperly classified and that we orde't that the
Agricultural Operations Officers be reclassified to the
position of Industrial Officer 2s and the Maintenance Foreman
be reclassified to the position of Industrial Officers 3 at
the relevant times and they be compensated accordingly.
In resolving the matter of compensation to the
qrievors, as Industrial Officers, they were not entitled to
the Custodial Responsibility Allowance and therefore all
payments of the Custodial Responsibility Allowance during the
relevant times must be deducted from any monies due to the
grievors as Industrial Officers 2 or 3, as the case may be.
In the event that parties are unable to resolve the
compensation issue within six months of this decision, we ,
will remain seized, provided that a request is made to the
Grievance Settlement Board to have the matter settled within
six months of this decision.
Dated at Toronto, this 25th day ofseptember 1990.
(kg _, / B.A. Kirkwood, Vicechairperson
h___
;.j
2 :5
'W . ,. a~& ./
,,.'
F. Taylor, . . Member
l I DISSENT " iDISSENT ATTACHED)
D. Clark, 'a: : Member
D I S S E N ‘l-
G.S.B. iti396188, i4i7/aa
OPSEU (K. Heslinga, J. Heijnen, B. Burkhart)
and The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Correctional Services)
I frei I must dissent in part.
kith respect to the Agricultural Operations Officer, the class
standard requires the employee to "supervise up to three
subordinate agricultural workers". The Industrial Officers,
Correctional Officers and inmates cannot, according to the
preamble, be considered as subordinates. This Board concluded
t~hat, asin the Townsend case, supervision of agricultural work
is a core function of the Agricultural Worker 3 and in this case
the Agricultural Operations Officer's position does not fit the'
job standard. The Board then considered whether or not the
Agricultural Operations Officer performed a job similar to that of the Greenhouse Officer (Industrial Officer 2). The Board
concluded that there were little differences in responsibilities
and job functions between the two positions. Following the
rationale'of Townsend, the. Board reclassified the Agricultural
Operations Officer to an 1,ndustrial Officer 2.
Although, I feel, as did the late Mr. Middleton in dissenting in the Townsend case, that undue weight is being given to the
supervision aspect, I feel bound by the u.case to agree r;ith
this reclassification; Had this case been heard prior to the
Townsend case, I uould have likely put forth a position that the
Agricultural Operations Officer should remain in the Agricultural
k’orker class series based on the facts of this'case.
Concerning the Position of Maintenance Foreman, I do not dispute
the finding of this Board that the duties and responsibilities do
not fit the class standard. I am not convinced however, that
this position should be an Industrial Officer 3. Accordingly, I
rjould have ordered the Ministry to create a new classification
within the Agricultural Worker class series which reflects both
the nature of supervision and the maintenance requirements of a
farming and landscaping operation.
. A%.&
Don M. Clark, Yember